You know it is very interesting to read about after the fact why players fall in the Draft.

Giroux had mono....For whatever reason some thought he didn't come back quick enough which led to a questioning his ability to play hurt etc...

A lot teams wish now they never bought into those rumors...

Like I said, not a science and maybe Saad will be a stud.

As far as trading Bolland.....This is the first time I have ever written one of the seven core guys to be rumored to be on the trading block since 2010....Certainly doesn't mean it will happen but if it does don't let it ruin your summer.
- Al

If they want to trade a core guy, I'd say look at trading Kane. While Kane is flashier and puts up bigger numbers by far...I think overall they are close to equal in value to the Hawks when all things are considered. Where Bolland is cheaper and Kane would bring back 10X the return in a trade.

If they want to trade a core guy, I'd say look at trading Kane. While Kane is flashier and puts up bigger numbers by far...I think overall they are close to equal in value to the Hawks when all things are considered. Where Bolland is cheaper and Kane would bring back 10X the return in a trade.
- RustNPeace

If they want to trade a core guy, trade the one who brings the most back without creating another problem.

Kane would bring back a lot more - but is there a replacement for Kane on the roster or in the system? If you trade Kane for a Nash, you haven't done anything; for a 2C, you've created a void at wing; if you can get 2 top-6 NHL players (not stars but NHL-ready) for Kane-plus, you've done something.

If you cam get a top-6 guy for Bolland-plus, you've done something because you have a potential replacement in the system (Kruger).

But Kane straight-up for anyone other than Crosby or Malkin or one or two others doesn't help you that much on the ice.

anyone know if the hawks are going to use there alternate jerseys this year,I like em.....just saying

anyone know if the hawks are going to use there alternate jerseys this year,I like em.....just saying
- southernhawk

No. The alternate jersey was retired after the '10-'11 season. I guess it wasn't very popular with management.

As far as what I've read, it looks like the Hawks will go without an alternate jersey again for the upcoming season.

http://www.icethetics.inf...nhl-jerseywatch-2012.html

Bolland brings skills that the Hawks can't replace. It makes no sense to trade him, Bolland should be a Blackhawk for life. Stan needs to address the 2nd line centre situation, but subtracting Bolland would leave a bigger hole.

Bolland brings skills that the Hawks can't replace. It makes no sense to trade him, Bolland should be a Blackhawk for life. Stan needs to address the 2nd line centre situation, but subtracting Bolland would leave a bigger hole.
- DarthKane

I disagree.

If the Hawks can move him to upgrade the #2 center spot, I would think it's worth doing. Given, the Hawks don't have someone of his caliber to fill his position right at the moment, but that could possibly be filled next season by Kruger, or some free agent signing.

Between Kruger, McNeill and Danault, one of these three will more than likely be able to replace Bolland's stingy two way play sometime in the next couple of seasons. From what I've seen of Danault, I believe he might be that guy.

A player such as Bolland might be one of the few trade chips the Hawks have, or are willing to give up, in order to address some of the needs this team has.

I'll agree that losing Bolland would hurt this team. It will only hurt in the short term, but his talent is replaceable. Blackhawk for life? No way. There are extremley few that someone could give that label. Toews would be one. Seabrook, maybe? That's about the only two I can think of who would fit in the "Blackhawk for life" argument.

Even though I'm of the opinion Staal won't be dealt this summer...

Why would Pit. be interested in Saad....Someone who grew up there and was speculated to be drafted by the Pens and they passed on last summer??
- Al

That doesn't mean they didn't want him.. Maybe they had him on their list but just after the guys they took.

Maybe their needs are different now than last years draft..

If they want to trade a core guy, trade the one who brings the most back without creating another problem.

Kane would bring back a lot more - but is there a replacement for Kane on the roster or in the system? If you trade Kane for a Nash, you haven't done anything; for a 2C, you've created a void at wing; if you can get 2 top-6 NHL players (not stars but NHL-ready) for Kane-plus, you've done something.

If you can get a top-6 guy for Bolland-plus, you've done something because you have a potential replacement in the system (Kruger).

But Kane straight-up for anyone other than Crosby or Malkin or one or two others doesn't help you that much on the ice.
- StLBravesFan

It may just be Kruger for now, but there is also Danault and McNeill who will need spots to fit into eventually.

It may just be Kruger for now, but there is also Danault and McNeill who will need spots to fit into eventually.
- EKolb13

It's not a sure thing that Kruger, McNeill or Danault can effectively play the 3rd line centre role. I think it's too early to tell at this point, maybe in a year from now we'd have a better idea. But I understand that a club doesn't have the time to wait.

I guess it comes down to which trio makes the best top 3 centres for us: Toews/Kane/Bolland or Toews/Staal/Kruger? I'm in favour of trading anyone if the deal makes the team better. But I don't know if trading Bolland does, I guess it would depend on what we got back. I'm a Kruger fan, but to me he still hasn't shown what he can do on a consistent basis. He could be better than Bolland or he could be worse, time will tell.

On a side note, I really wish Sharp would play centre on the 2nd line. That could solve a lot of issues (assuming Stan doesn't trade for a legit 2C).

That doesn't mean they didn't want him.. Maybe they had him on their list but just after the guys they took.

Maybe their needs are different now than last years draft..
- pri$ey

There are a lot of teams that passed on Saad that would not today with a re draft. Just because a GM doesn't pick a certain player doesn't mean they weren't wrong and/or wouldn't want him at a later date. Saad is clearly viewed way more differently now than he was on draft day...

You know it is very interesting to read about after the fact why players fall in the Draft.

Giroux had mono....For whatever reason some thought he didn't come back quick enough which led to a questioning his ability to play hurt etc...

A lot teams wish now they never bought into those rumors...

Like I said, not a science and maybe Saad will be a stud.

As far as trading Bolland.....This is the first time I have ever written one of the seven core guys to be rumored to be on the trading block since 2010....Certainly doesn't mean it will happen but if it does don't let it ruin your summer.
- Al

I know Sean Couturier was considered the #1 until he got mono and dropped to #8. Giroux too?

You provided zero facts or source reference for your pronouncement that Hossa would be 100% October 1. As though it was scripted by Hawk ticket sales. When I questioned you on it, you tried to make it about how I handle disagreements. And you were disrespectful—which is a violation of the code of conduct.

Still no answer to the original question either, just an escalation of making it about me.

Your cover is blown. Your agenda—for whatever reason— is to pump the company line and undermine anyone critical of the Hawks (especially me) at every turn.

I don't care if you disagree. Lots of people disagree with me.

But here's the thing, I'm not going to get into a discussion with you, publicly or privately, that remotely comes near my defending myself against your innuendoes and rhetorical switchbacks. I don't need to.

You have been publicly asked by others here before as to whether you are working for the Hawks. Have you not? (Umm, yeah, ya have)

Very simply, you're a troublemaker with an agenda. Remember "gerry"? Where did he go? Maybe you can join him.

I am done with you, and if you get to be too much of a problem, you will be gone. The fact that I have wasted this many keystrokes should tell you how close that is.
- John Jaeckel

Sweet melt down.

It's not a sure thing that Kruger, McNeill or Danault can effectively play the 3rd line centre role. I think it's too early to tell at this point, maybe in a year from now we'd have a better idea. But I understand that a club doesn't have the time to wait.

I guess it comes down to which trio makes the best top 3 centres for us: Toews/Kane/Bolland or Toews/Staal/Kruger? I'm in favour of trading anyone if the deal makes the team better. But I don't know if trading Bolland does, I guess it would depend on what we got back. I'm a Kruger fan, but to me he still hasn't shown what he can do on a consistent basis. He could be better than Bolland or he could be worse, time will tell.

On a side note, I really wish Sharp would play centre on the 2nd line. That could solve a lot of issues (assuming Stan doesn't trade for a legit 2C).
- DarthKane

Kruger, McNeill, and Danault are not Bolland, nor as good as Bolland. At least not now. I think if needed, Kruger could serve as a stop gap to replace Bolland, at least on paper. Unless McNeill & Danault can elevate their game between now and the start of the season to run away with a job coming out of camp, either won't be a realistic factor in the line-up until '13-'14, at the earliest. For what it's worth, the little I did see of Danault impressed me enough to think he could effectively replace Bolland someday, maybe as soon as '13-'14.

As for Staal, I think Al is right. I don't think Pittsburgh has to deal him, at least not now. Even if they do, the amount of talent/picks to acquire him is going to be rather high, possibly as high as Jesse Rogers even suggested in his trade proposal (Bolland/Saad/prospect/1st). Even hypotheticlly giving up that kind of talent for a #2 center is one thing, but to cough it up for a guy who could very well walk at the end of that season is asinine. Even to re-sign someone like Staal, that's another $2-3 million added to a cap hit/salary, minimum. It leaves a lot less room to keep other pieces to this team. In all, I don't think Staal in Chicago makes a alot of sense at this point.

As for the Sharp at center idea, I know it's been said he doesn't want to play there. Also, Sharp is right handed, and I think it's been said before that Hossa prefers a left handeed center. That could factor in as to part of why Sharp isn't at center.

In all, I guess I'm not totally against Kane centering a line again. Even though he's not that strong at the dot, he did play some of his best hockey there this past season.

If the Hawks are going to deal Bolland or Hjalmarsson in a package, I would hope it gets this team a legitimate #2 center, one who isn't ready to walk at the end of next season. I guess we'll see what happens come draft day.

Kruger, McNeill, and Danault are not Bolland, nor as good as Bolland. At least not now. I think if needed, Kruger could serve as a stop gap to replace Bolland, at least on paper. Unless McNeill & Danault can elevate their game between now and the start of the season to run away with a job coming out of camp, either won't be a realistic factor in the line-up until '13-'14, at the earliest. For what it's worth, the little I did see of Danault impressed me enough to think he could effectively replace Bolland someday, maybe as soon as '13-'14.

As for Staal, I think Al is right. I don't think Pittsburgh has to deal him, at least not now. Even if they do, the amount of talent/picks to acquire him is going to be rather high, possibly as high as Jesse Rogers even suggested in his trade proposal (Bolland/Saad/prospect/1st). Even hypotheticlly giving up that kind of talent for a #2 center is one thing, but to cough it up for a guy who could very well walk at the end of that season is asinine. Even to re-sign someone like Staal, that's another $2-3 million added to a cap hit/salary, minimum. It leaves a lot less room to keep other pieces to this team. In all, I don't think Staal in Chicago makes a alot of sense at this point.

As for the Sharp at center idea, I know it's been said he doesn't want to play there. Also, Sharp is right handed, and I think it's been said before that Hossa prefers a left handeed center. That could factor in as to part of why Sharp isn't at center.

In all, I guess I'm not totally against Kane centering a line again. Even though he's not that strong at the dot, he did play some of his best hockey there this past season.

If the Hawks are going to deal Bolland or Hjalmarsson in a package, I would hope it gets this team a legitimate #2 center, one who isn't ready to walk at the end of next season. I guess we'll see what happens come draft day.
- EKolb13

Kane at Centre would be great if he has a real sniper on his line. Kane is a world class set up man , a world class finisher would be greaaatttttt.

Kane at Centre would be great if he has a real sniper on his line. Kane is a world class set up man , a world class finisher would be greaaatttttt.
- mrpaulish

Are you saying Hossa can't finish

Are you saying Hossa can't finish
- southernhawk

Are you saying Carcillo can't finish?

Are you saying Carcillo can't finish?
- DarthKane

Nice one Darth....

Are yyyoooouuuuu saying Jon Scott couldn't finish

Are you saying Hossa can't finish
- southernhawk

I cannot speak for anyone, but the way I take it is Hossa has to be more than just a finisher on this team the way it jhas been constructed the last few seasons.

That has been my gripe for a while now, why didn't make Hossa the key guy and get him the center he needs? Now, I am afraid, it might be too late.

You provided zero facts or source reference for your pronouncement that Hossa would be 100% October 1. As though it was scripted by Hawk ticket sales. When I questioned you on it, you tried to make it about how I handle disagreements. And you were disrespectful—which is a violation of the code of conduct.

Still no answer to the original question either, just an escalation of making it about me.

Your cover is blown. Your agenda—for whatever reason— is to pump the company line and undermine anyone critical of the Hawks (especially me) at every turn.

I don't care if you disagree. Lots of people disagree with me.

But here's the thing, I'm not going to get into a discussion with you, publicly or privately, that remotely comes near my defending myself against your innuendoes and rhetorical switchbacks. I don't need to.

You have been publicly asked by others here before as to whether you are working for the Hawks. Have you not? (Umm, yeah, ya have)

Very simply, you're a troublemaker with an agenda. Remember "gerry"? Where did he go? Maybe you can join him.

I am done with you, and if you get to be too much of a problem, you will be gone. The fact that I have wasted this many keystrokes should tell you how close that is.
- John Jaeckel

So basically what you're saying is that you think I work for the Hawks because I refuse to divulge my source regarding Marian Hossa's intentions for next season.

Why do you (or any other person) not divulge their source JJ? Simply because if they do, they will no longer get information from said source. I don't think I have to explain that to someone who's been doing what you do for so long.

You also accuse me of being disrespectful. I would appreciate you show me where I've disrespected you. I have disagreed with you, yes. I have had heated discussions with you, yes. Everyone here with any self-made opinions will have heated discussions. But I have never disrespected you.

I honestly believe you simply dislike me because I disagree with you, or that I call you on what I believe is inaccurate information. If that's the case, just say so, so that we may end this, because I see no other valid reason why you would refuse to cite why I deserve to be banned.

I am a passionate Hawk fan, like everyone else here. I have strong opinions, some (granted very few) sources in the NHL, a good knowledge of the game and convictions that go beyond what I read and what others' opinions are. I am NOT however employed, nor do I wish to be employed to share those opinions. If that were the case, I would have my own blog site.

Take the tin foil hat off, as they say. There is no conspiracy where I am concerned JJ.

I have also always been ready to admit when I've been wrong (like CC after the season ended, or Bowman at the same point in time). Can you say the same?

If you honestly think I have been disrespectful, I shudder to think of your opinion of some of the other posts I've seen on the HB boards over the years.

That doesn't mean they didn't want him.. Maybe they had him on their list but just after the guys they took.

Maybe their needs are different now than last years draft..
- pri$ey

Maybe....Just doesn't seem like someone they will value more than others in a trade.

We don't know how much they value Saad now but we do know they had an opportunity to Draft him as he was playing right under their nose.

I know Sean Couturier was considered the #1 until he got mono and dropped to #8. Giroux too?
- moylander

I just read a book by Gare Joyce and I'm almost certain there were issues with Giroux surrounding how long he was out with mono.

I will try to find out for sure...but I think I'm correct.

I disagree.

If the Hawks can move him to upgrade the #2 center spot, I would think it's worth doing. Given, the Hawks don't have someone of his caliber to fill his position right at the moment, but that could possibly be filled next season by Kruger, or some free agent signing.

Between Kruger, McNeill and Danault, one of these three will more than likely be able to replace Bolland's stingy two way play sometime in the next couple of seasons. From what I've seen of Danault, I believe he might be that guy.

A player such as Bolland might be one of the few trade chips the Hawks have, or are willing to give up, in order to address some of the needs this team has.

I'll agree that losing Bolland would hurt this team. It will only hurt in the short term, but his talent is replaceable. Blackhawk for life? No way. There are extremley few that someone could give that label. Toews would be one. Seabrook, maybe? That's about the only two I can think of who would fit in the "Blackhawk for life" argument.
- EKolb13

Wrong.

There is no empirical NHL performance based evidence showing the Hawks have anyone who can fill Bolland's skill set TODAY, or reliably within the time frame that the core players' contracts are in force. At this point any other assesment is based purely upon speculation.

Fans won't stand for another year of dashed expectations. They need a deep run NEXT season. Trusting 3C on this team to a rookie would be really stupid. Bolland elevates anyone on wing with him - even marginal guys like Bickell. He is far too valuable and brings intangibles that none of the rooks or prospects have.

Stan needs to do the hard work to fill the roster via FA and trades of the lower tier players and their prospects, and not take the easier path by dangling our best players as bait.

They DON'T need to trade top players to fill the holes.

There are a lot of teams that passed on Saad that would not today with a re draft. Just because a GM doesn't pick a certain player doesn't mean they weren't wrong and/or wouldn't want him at a later date. Saad is clearly viewed way more differently now than he was on draft day...
- ilinkhawk

They are young kids and things change quickly...

Saad is finally an All Star as others thiught he should have been before.

In context my point about Saad was he may not be someone the Pens would highly value in a trade. In my view others may moreso.....

As for Staal....

I agree with Al - Pens have no urgency or need to trade him. Unless a team is stupid enough to far overpay for him. Shero would always consider a one sided deal favoring him.

But he needs Crosby insurance to boot and he has Staal for a while longer anyway.